About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

IP Outreach Research > IP Crime

Reference

Title: Luxury Institute Wealth Survey
Author: [Luxury Institute]
Source:

http://www.luxuryinstitute.com/doclib/doclib_popup.cgi?file=46-9dc62cb08ece6c1b2713b97e6c012839.pdf

Year: 2006

Details

Subject/Type: Counterfeiting
Focus: Brands (deceptive counterfeits), Brands (non-deceptive counterfeits), Luxury Goods
Country/Territory: United States of America
Objective: To analyze the effects of counterfeiting of luxury goods.
Sample: 300+ American households with a minimum of $200.000 in gross annual income and minimum net worth of $1.000.000
Methodology: Survey

Main Findings

Four out of five wealthy American consumers say that counterfeiting of luxury brands has a negative impact on the brands affected. Older respondents are more likely to feel that way (83%) than those aged 18-30 (67%).

Forty percent of wealthy consumers report knowing at least some people who buy counterfeit goods. Younger wealthy Americans are more likely to be familiar with counterfeit luxury goods buyers than those aged 40 and above. Overall, 56% of respondents see the purchase of counterfeit luxury goods getting worse in the next few years.

Most wealthy consumers are not fooled by the quality of fake luxury goods: three quarters say that counterfeits are visibly inferior, and three quarters also say they can often spot the difference between a fake and the real thing.

The wealthy have little respect for individuals who buy fake goods and the countries that allow the illegal production of these goods: over two thirds say that governments should impose sanctions on countries that allow the production, distribution and sale of fake luxury goods, and 85% say that China is the one country that is doing the least within the international community to stop this problem.

[Date Added: Jul 31, 2009 ]